Idea of the muscle car is dead (Or, why Ford can't sell cars now)

Sorry, not. There are too many variables behind those numbers to just spit them out and think that it proves something.

You're completely discounting inflation, trends, evolution of taste and style, and the simple fact that NOBODY GIVES A CRAP about muscle cars anymore.

But you just rest now. Your brain must be tired.

dwight

Sure Woolworth's, Walgreene's are two I know of, but in 1960 my parents were not even yet married.

I agree that today's Mustang costs more than a '65-'73 Mustang, even after adjusting for inflation. Last time I checked, the correct multiplier for a 1970 dollar is five 200x dollars. The Department of Labor website has the complete info. So adjusting for inflation a $4000 1970 428 Cobra Jet Mustang would get you to $20,000 today. The $20,000 price point today is the home of the Honda Civic, but nothing much in the way of performance.

However, today's cars have so much more standard equipment than the cars of the '60's, it's apples to oranges. Try to buy a performance car without power steering, power brakes, AC, AM/FM/CD, pdl, pw, power seats, cruise control, trip computer, etc, etc. You can't! Not to mention driveability, fuel economy, emissions controls, and yes horsepower too, that weren't available at any price in the '60's.

Although not exactly on topic, the fact is that we have recently passed a tipping point, where the route to cheap thrills via high performance cars is not to buy and hotrod the old heaps but instead to pick up a late model in the $10,000 to $20,000 price range. That range covers turbo Supras, '03-'04 SVT Cobras, LT4 '96 Corvettes and LSx Corvettes and Cambirds. If you like to live dangerouslyl, there are also many BMW M cars and a few MB AMG cars in this price range too.

My personal choice is the '04-06 GTO. In April I got a 60,000 mile '04 for $15k, which was not a screamin deal but I got impatient and took the plunge. For $15k I got a 350 hp, high 13s 155 mph car, with irs, 4-wheel discs, lsd, all leather interior, OD auto (T56 6-spds are much more common), 6-disc 8-speaker stereo, AC, cruise, pdl, pw, power seats, power rearview mirrors, trip computer, and other odds and ends. For $4k to $6k more you can find 10,000 mile '05s and '06s with the 400 hp LS2. Or for $6k you can throw a roots blower on an '04 and get 500 hp. Not smog legal, so that's not an option here in the SF Bay Area, unless I want to pull it all off every 2 years for Smog Check.

Point being, I'm not crying crocodile tears for anyone who wants hipo fun in 2008 and whines that it used to be cheaper 40-45 years ago.

180 Out

OUCH! LOL :0) My folks are still going strong. Married in 1947, Mom is 76, and Dad is 81. I'm only 60. :0)

Yabut I was born in 63.

getting back to the original "muscle cars are dead" theme:

to me, the failing of American car companies is their inability to bring a car to market in a timely manner. Jees, they used to restyle every model every year....and every car was "all new" every 3 years (new chasis, body, etc)

now it takes them 6 years to restyle a grill, and by the time they bring a new car to market, the market for that kind of car has evaporated. Yes, EPA, crash testing and probably just as much Design by Committee and Market Research..

The original Mustang was designed to be optioned to suit just about any kind of buyer. When the new one got to market in 2005, it was as either a 6 or 8......but not cheap either way (and why get the 6 when the 8 got nearly as good mileage?).

NOW......3,4,5 years later GM and Chrysler market their responses.....and the Challenger is introduced as a Hemi only. Saleens, Cobras, etc., etc. ..... just what we need with $4 gas (along with the

4500 pound Flex).

Meanwhile, it seems the Japanese and Koreans are able to have the right cars at the right time.

What I don't know is if the Mustang, Challenger and Camaro are intended as mass market cars, or niche vehicles. Time and time again in the

70s,80s,90s we saw cars discontinued because they supposedly didn't sell in sufficient quantities to justify (like "only 150,000 a year").....so I can't see cars being designed just for old farts like me (you know, wanted a new Mustang in '68 but didn't have 2 cents to my name......my new GT convert wasn't bought as transportation, but as a toy and "dream fullfillment" and I could care less what gas costs for it -- I put gas in it twice a year). But I don't see "secretaries" driving them either......are there enough old farts and good ol' boys to justify muscle cars?

FYI: adding the Mustang to my regular insurance costs about $550 a year......it will go to Collectors's insurance soon as I can prove how little it is driven. Back in '65 a pretty nice 'stang could be had for $3500. My Dad was considered "upper income" because he made over $15000 a year......my college tuition was $200 a term. In '65 we "made a killing" selling our lakeside house for $40,000........the same family owned it until 1992 and then sold it for $800,000 ..... the buyer tore it down and spent $1.55MM to build a new one on the lot. Times change. But new cars still take a much bigger chunk of the average person's annual income..... it looks like leasing won't be an alternative to a lot of people who want a newer car.....and keeping a fuel injected, computer controlled car going when it gets older isn't the same as the $200 winter beaters we bought back then. A lot of poeple are gonna be in a bind.

More tripping down memory lane: my Dad didn't believe in financing and paid cash for every car he ever bought.......last night I saw a commercial for Cadillac Escalades with 72 MONTH loan terms. Gees.

My first new car was a 1972 Pinto - $2,200 out the door. Next was a 1975 Datsun 280Z - $65000 out the door. Then a 1978 Farimont V-8 loaded - somewhere around $5000 ou the door I don't think I topped $10k until I bought an F150 in 1992. The biggest jump was when I bought an Explorer in 1996 - and that one was over $26K. On the other hand I bought a 2006 Mustang for my son for around $15k and even though it is only a V6, it has at least as good performance as mid-90's Mustang V8s.

Ed

I have to believe that there are two major considerations in NOT buying a Mustang.

1. Insurance. The rates for a V8 engine are killer for young people. Hell, I'm an old fart, and I still pay a penalty for having a V8, one that puts my rates on a 1993 Mustang right up there with my wife's new 2007 Escape. I get a break on the insurance for the convertible, because I can't drive both cars at the same time, otherwise, I'd have to seriously consider keeping two!
2. Young people usually mean young families. I've lost count of how many people have said that they had to sell off their Mustangs when they had kids. To me, that's a lame excuse, since the back seat of a Mustang isn't much good for anything BUT kids, but it must be the whole access-to-the-back-seat-in-a-coupe thing that makes them go away. It's so much easier to transport children in a 4-door sedan, minivan, or SUV.

Those of us who are kidless and have the means can look to Mustangs, certainly, but a V8 coupe doesn't fit the needs for a lot of the younger ones.

dwight

1972 Straight from the factory Datsun 240, $2600. Instead we got an new MG Midget for $2000... drove it right out of the showroom.

and a 50 year mortgage is now available.

Part of the problem is that all business relies on two basic factors. Items made today will wear out, and the population will continue to grow, providing new people to buy the products. What we need is a mass reduction of world population, so we can start over.....

The buying power of the middle class in ALL areas has continued to shrink as prices on everything rise, in part because we are forced to fund every socialist idea that comes down the pike. God help the USA if we have a left leaning President and a left leaning Congress in control!

Yep. Had a 72 Mustang when both kids were young. Spouse kept ragging on me about how we needed a family car. So she picked out a 72 Nova hatchback a guy at work was selling. Made a lot of sense to me. Lots of people dump the sporty car for family friendly vehicle that the kids can eventually be hauled to soccor games, and such. Never mind that they probably won't even have the same vehicle by then.

As for Muscle Cars..... Ford will be keeping an eye on Chevrolet with the 2010 planned release of the Camaro. You can bet that their sales staff will be crunching numbers.

"Spike" wrote

I talked to a guy here locally who has an in with CS and he's seen some of the pictures for the 2010 update. He says it looks as much like a '69 sportsroof as the '05-'09's look like a '66-'68. Says it has the "hips" of the bigger sportsroof. Dunno if he's blowing smoke or what but I think it would be awesome.

Scott W. '68 Ranchero 500 '69 Boss 302 SR2 clone

I guess we should also consider that new cars last longer than those old cars that were built so much better, lol. IF you can afford a new car today, chances are you can drive it 100,000 miles without any major expense.......so while it was crazy to take out a 3 year car loan "in the good old days", I guess it isn't so nuts to take out a 5 year loan now (if you get a very low rate).

Maybe youngers don't know: RUST: if you lived anywhere salt was used in the winter, a normal car could be pretty well rusted-out in 3 years. Those '55 Chevies that look so good now, were full of holes when they were 5 years old. But we didn't think much of it, since the rest of the car was worn out, too: tires didn't last 20,000 miles, you replaced shocks, water pumps, mufflers, radiators, generators every couple years. You changed the oil and got a "lube job" every 1000 miles. And a tune-up (points, plugs, carb adjust & time) at least once a year....hoses and belts might last 2 years.....you changed anti-freeze every year. Right thru 1954, Packard's recommended Spring check-up included dropping the oil pan for cleaning! The upside was that if you knew what you were doing, you could shop around for a 2 year old car and find a "creampuff" that had been taken care of for next to nothing......I used to buy 2 year old T-Birds (when they were on 3 year styling cycles).......my '61 had 20,000 miles on it - paid all of $600, which was way above "market" but it was pristine.

HaHaHa: the old "resale value" of one make over another made a big difference when choosing a new car .........can you believe people worried about whether their $3600 new car would be worth $500 or $600 when they traded it in a few years down the road?

So.....an old Hemi Cuda or Challenger is worth over a million today........what will the new muscle cars be worth in 10, 20, 30 years? Undoubtedly, they are "better" cars, but.........

Damn.....I managed to buy a lot of the old cars I lusted for as a kid......but would still give my left nut for a '55 Coupe deVille......but they're worth more than that!

That's hitting the old rust holes with bondo :0)

One of the reasons old car prices are so high is that so few of them still exist. How many of the 1965 Mustang Fastbacks produced still exist? Sure there are a lot of them BUT a lot compared to the original numbers? No.

There will always be "collectors". I look back on all the cars of the past that I could have had for a song and dance.... Bricklin, Avanti, Commander, XKE.... A local couple collect cars. His are all Chevelle SS/GTO types, and hers are all Metropolitans. His would be a first thought on a list of cars to collect. But hers? Who woulda thunk it?

My best friend up in Washington, in 1971 found an original 1967 Mustang fastback at a dealer that was still under original factory warranty. Seems it came in some ugly color, 6 cyl, etc. Like it was the basic Mustang before any options were selected. The dealer had added custom wheels, V8 swap w/dual exhaust, 4 spd. posi, custom paint, custom stereo, etc etc etc. Dale got the car for $1500. A week later he had orders to Vietnam. The car was headed for his folks place to go on blocks.

There are deals out there.......

The final specs on the car were just released. Have toi watch and see, but it sure looked sharp.

The thing that really bugs me is all the websites who have it completely wrong and are reporting that the styling design by the italian Giugiaro design house (or however you spell it) is in fact the next mustang. which it is not. The bright orange funky looking fastback looks cool but is not the next mustang. I see just as many webites using the original silver concept from '04 and stating that it's going to be the next Mustang also. Some idiot finds a picture out there that doesn't look like the Mustang we have now and automatically assumes and then promotes it as "the next Mustang".

Scott W. '68 Ranchero 500 '69 Boss 302 SR2 clone

There's a picture of /my/ 2010 Mustang at

It's also my 2006, '07, '08, and '09 Mustang. I'll wait to see how everyone else's 2010 Mustang develops to decide on a 2011.

That's the specs on the Camaro were just released according to the news report.

Spike wrote in news: snipped-for-privacy@4ax.com:

Here's an interesting link: